Skip to main content
7:00 am
put a couple of checks on the dining room table. the checks for the next year's tuition and said get out of activism and you can have those checks. and this is what howard did. i tore them up in his face, and that was the end of my college education, and it was at that time that howard became a labor activist. howard moved to san francisco in 1967, with his lover, roger. he continued to work in the antiwar movement as a organizer in opposition to the vietnam war and staff organizer for the national peace coalition. his efforts and those of other progressive activists to bring into the movement -- to bring labor into the movement were very successful when the northern california labor councils were the first to actually oppose the vietnam war. with the rise of an organized movement in the gay community in the early 1970's, howard founded
7:01 am
the bay area gay liberation inkn 1975, which was to advance lgbt rights here in san francisco. the organization's life was actions for lgbt rights and dramatically increased the san francisco. during that period he formed the committee to defend gays in the military. this was back in the mid-1970's. and he began his work on the boycott in 1975. of course those of us who know a little bit about harvey milk know a little bit about his involvement in that boycott. as howard explains it, they came to harvey milk and howard and asked for their support for this strike and boycott and both harvey and howard endorsed it, which was really key to making the boycott successful because howard, working with harvey milk, used their influence with
7:02 am
bartenders and bar owners in the make the boycott successful and it was really the first time where you had that very powerful pairing of the labor movement with the lgbt community, and that has become very powerful. howard was on the staff of seiu local 50, and as an organizer and community representative wa one of the first in the country to unite lgbt and labor struggles and educate both movements about the other. he retired in 2001 but he remained active until the very end of his life. and one of howard's greatest achievements was actually the formation[jdf of an organizatn that united both lgbt and labor movements he founded gay and lesbian labor alliance with international secretary treasurer of the office and travel)!:::op employees union, y wolfer in the mid-1980's.
7:03 am
that evolved into pride at work, an lgbt labor associated affiliated with afl-cio and howard served as vice president until before his death. howard is preceded in death by his parents and his older brother john of denver. he is survived by his sister barbara, nieces linda, gwen, the social movements that he led and those that continue to howard was that unique individual that remained true to his beliefs throughout his life. and i think that those of us who know him can fairly say that he certainly made the world ah nj better place, and the world was extremely lucky that he was a part of it. and for those of us who had the opportunity to have him in our
7:04 am
lives, we are eternally grateful. there will be(n% ]$÷ a memorian january 6 at iowu local 34 next to the giants ballpark from 2:00 to 4:00 pm. and we will have figures like dolores huerta and others who will be there to honor howard's life. its is with great sadness we announce his passing and respectfully ask that we adjourn today's meeting in howard wallace's memory. thank you, howard. may you rest in peace. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor campos. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i have two items today. the first is a resolution that i'm introducing along with president chiu and i want to thank him for his cosponsorship urging the national park service to cease efforts to locate the alcatraz ferry service at fort on workingo'ég8çu)u$ the port to confine continued service at the
7:05 am
port of san francisco. as a bit of background on june 2012 of this past year mps began pjpublic scoping process establish a long term ferry service between san francisco waterfront and alcatraz island. they're also evaluating possible fer y service to sauc sausalitod are looking at three sites at the port of san francisco. piers 31 1/2ened have operated on the port of san francisco property for the past few decades. currently over 1.4 million people visit alcatraz island each year from their existing site at fisherman's wharf. fisherman's wharf is a bustling commercial district with restaurants, gift shops, over 3,000 hotel rooms and tourist attractions well served by public transportation. contrast that to fort mason and the marina au>%( f predominanty residential neighborhood that i represent with a population of 23,000 residents.
7:06 am
23,000 residents. mps is looking at-0 wharf. the fort mason location would require shuttle buses to take people from jones street to fort mason, which will increase large vehicle traffic on street already impacted with the golden gate transit, sightseeing buses and public buses. one of the city's most popular tourist destinations. most importantly, adding the potential of 5,000 visitors per day to the marina district or population this neighborhood,7jp%[ and ce adverse impacts on parking and traffic in an already very congested area. drastically altering a residential neighborhood and the businesses already established at fort mason is bold considering the fort mason merchants group do not believe it is a feasible alternative and
7:07 am
voted against it. marina green is in capacity due to children's athletic leagues and the different experiences1' tourists have coming to the marina green through the rec and park department. this resolution urgency national park service to abandon plans tu relocate the alcatraz to the fort mason and continue their service at our port. i've already met with mps to encourage them to work with the port and look forward to them continuing that effort. second today i'm introducing legislation in support of our lgbt community that counters discriminatory federal tax policy and to provide a higher level of equalitytj( xrñ for sax spouses an partners who work for the city and county of san francisco. i'd like to thank cosponsors, campos and wiener. current city employees who would likemzjpkn to add their spouse r
7:08 am
is taken out of their paycheck. federal government views health coverage by same sex spouses and domestidomestic -- to be taxable income. therefore they're taxed more than other city employees simply because their spouse or partners of the same gender. this discrimination in our federal tax code has cost same-sex partners thousands of dollars each year. as of july 28 of this year the latest data we have, the number of city and county of san francisco active members with same-sex domestic partners total over 350. san francisco has always been a leader in supporting our lgbt community and i'm proud to stand with that group. following the example of other municipalities such as cambridge, massachusetts and private employers such as google in the bay area who have shown leadership on this issue and stood with our lgbt community ensure that same sex domestic partners will
7:09 am
not be burdened with these taxes anymore this is an issue ofuqjxp equal. additional tax is one of the many results of the -- marriage act in congress. domestic partners are denied federal protection offered to other couples such as immigrant rights, social security survival benefits and ability to file joint tax returns. this additional tax on same sex domestic partners adds another sting to doma. these next few weeks will be significant forjíñ the lgbt community and those who stand with them as the supreme court will decide whether to -- proposition 8 perry case and various doma cases however i don't believe we should stand still while this discrimination continues. i look forward to working with everyone on the board to the rest i submit. >> clerk calvillo: thank you. supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: thank you very much.
7:10 am
i have an empirrative item later on and i want to speak to it. it is a purely commendatory item. i am joined by supervisor elsbernd in sponsoring this. i simply want to recognize the grand reopening of the sunset rec center in my district located in the the heart of the sunset district and is actually our own full scale rec center that is available. we have many playgrounds, play fields, but we don't necessarily have a rec center so this one has been under construction foru the last two years. it was part of the 2008 clean that the voters approved and is a 14 million dollar project that has come in on budget. with that improvement we see 18,000 square foot of gym space reopening with seismic improvements, ada improvements, something that is sorely missed in our district having a recreation space for all families. today i simple where want to recognize the grand reopening and thank all the people who really helped to5ljd make this possible, not only recreation staff, but also dpw, the arts
7:11 am
commission and of course the your parks. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor chu. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i actually just want to take a moment to share some words about howard wallace as well. and i want to really appreciate supervisor campos for just the beautiful story and talking about his life and his experience. he's someone i know that many of us will really sorely miss. howard was someone that i'm really grateful that i got an opportunity to get to know. and i met him actually in 2005, when several of us here in this room were involved in the san francisco people's organization. i just have an incredible level of respect for howard. he was always incredibly reasonable, but undeniably and staunchly progressive. he was vocal on many different
7:12 am
issues but always open-minded. most permanen importantly he ben building coalition that was genuine and he was dedicated to that and he also loved to share stories. stories. i think many of us, with him at6 had to share, which are so important near us to continue to remember as we continue to build upon that work, and upon the city. and i know he loved being the moral compass at labor. he really believed that he was the left voice in labor. he always talked about the importancezp.÷ of labor and creg coalitions of communities of color. sometimes, when i would walk into some rooms, when running for elections, he was sometimes the only friendly face. and i still remember -- and i really, really, really miss howard. i'm really sad. it's truly a loss for our city. but i'm so grateful that i had an opportunity to work with him and to get to know him.
7:13 am
>> the clerk: thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to add on to the restroomance remes well. he always was reaching out to build solidarity, not just with the labor movement but with the antiwar movement and the lgbt communities as well. he was an incredible person. i wanted to thank his former seiu local 250 ac activist colleagues kathy lip scom for watching out for him so long but other activists like tab, eileen, his susan, carl, and the whole pride at work community for really making sure he was cared for in his last days as well. i wanted to say that i had tremendous respect for him as an organizer but especially as a person with a long view of movement building.
7:14 am
and i wanted÷apx? to ask if i cd also be added on the in memoriamium for howard but also for farley. he had a wonderful memorial last night in the green money. listens of 91.7 fm and the staff and all the volunteers from that great radio station as well. thank you. >> clerk calvillo: thank you, supervisor mar. mr. president, seeing no other names on the roster that concludes roll call for introductions. >> president chiu: colleagues, why don't we recall supervisor olague's item which is item 16. madam clerk, did you call that item? >> clerk calvillo: yes, mr. president. it is now on the floor. >> president chiu: supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: there were a few -- this is introduced a couple of times, and then we continued it because there were some issues that were outstanding, and so i'll just go ahead and mention how some of those were resolved. the first thing, the issue of
7:15 am
defining when planning staff reports are required to include the dashboard has basically been settled. so the changes are on page 4, line 24. and it mentions they will outline staff reports to the planning commission historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors so that's kind of stated there, on all proposed projects, it mentions it in detail. also, there was this -- the big dispute was really about the naming -- or defining of housing above 120% or from 120 to dj), . some -- i believe that it's the planning department, i might be wrong, that defines it as middle income housing, but it's the -- what do you call it -- the mayor's office on housing that
7:16 am
defines it as upper middle income housing. phrasing so i just removed it altogether, and just wanted to make sure that it was included in the reporting. and mentioned instead that including data on household 150%. descriptions based on sponsor's disloars of unit pricing for market rate housing proposals and we were going to add additional language, and other available data to that. so rather than define it,xpihélt remove that. >> president chiu: supervisor olague, just so i'm clear, the version that you sent out did not include -- so you're going to add that to your amendment. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> president chiu: thank you.
7:17 am
>> supervisor olague: and then of mentions that. pricing disclosure by pricing sponsors as basis of the data to 150% ami. planning department -- below 120% but has formula to create a to 150%. the planning department is here in case you need to correct me or clarify something. feel free. the -- reporting is to identify actual numbers based on a percentage of last year's total. i believe the the methodology to determine the 120 to 150% area median income warrants its own policy discussion which i don't of i won't be around to participate in but the board might look at this discussion in
7:18 am
the feature. it might be worthy more at land use or something. however until that longer discussion occurs i propose we should keep the legislation as is, reporting actual numbers. so that kind of sums up some of the amendments that were added tîñ÷ this. >> president chiu: supervisor olague has made the possession to amend as described. is there a second? seconded by supervisor kim. any discussion? supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: not on the motion to amend. >> president chiu: on the motion to amend, supervisor wiener. >> supervisor wiener: i just i -- everything supervisor olague just said. us? >> supervisor olague: yes, with the exception of just a few words. >> supervisor wiener: so then is that on line 6 and line 17 of page 5, the addition of, and other available data? >> supervisor olague: yeah, we wanted1!jpéuz discuss that with- >> supervisor wiener: so it will say based on sponsor's
7:19 am
market rate housing proposal and other available data in both locations. >> supervisor olague: yeah. >> supervisor wiener: i appreciate that. >> supervisor olague: it was the upper moderate income housing was the way that -- >> supervisor wiener: thank you. amendment because of the -- most of the amendment is fine. i will not be supporting this because of the deletion of, quote, middle income households, in other words stating that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income households. actually i have to say i find that aspect of the amendment to be pretty extraordinary. and i'm shocked that the amendment's even being offered today. just about a month ago, this board voted unanimously to accept an amendment that's -- among other things, that 120 to 150% of area median income is
7:20 am
middle class. there's no reason to remove it and i don't know why it's being proposed for removal. on the merits, 120% to 150% of area median income is middle class. and i don't know why that would be questioned. we are struggling to keep our middle class in san francisco. we're losing ground in terms of our middle class leaving because of the cost of housing and other issues and we need to turn that around. one of the reasons a month ago why i offered the amendments i did was to make sure we were tracking housing production, not just of low income but in addition, middle income as well. the last thing we as a board should be doing is to start signaling that people who are in the middle class are actually in the upper middle class or wealthy, whatever it is that a signal by accepting this amendment. what is 120 to 150%, in terms of
7:21 am
dollar amounts. a two person household making 98,900 a year is at 120% of ami. a two person household making 123,000 is 150% of ami. category? two san francisco unified school district teachers with five years of service and bachelor's degrees are at 120% of ami. so two pretty junior teachers living together are in this 120 to 150 range of ami. now, we can talk about the building trades, and the carpenters, et cetera, who fall -- two of them are living together, would fall into 120% now let's look at the upper end
7:22 am
of a four-person household, 120 to 150% of ami for a four-person hoastled, let's say two parents, two kids is 123 to 154,000 of ami. as i mentioned the last time this came up speaker john pérez has proposed and i think he's proposing again and he should propose it that for anyone in california with a family where the household is making up to 150,000 a year, that family would get a middle class reduction in to -- from our state universities. john pérez, one of the leading democrats in the state, has indicated that 150% of ami throughout california, even though it's cheaper to live elsewhere qualifies as a middle class. why would we ever say that these people, two teachers living together, two carpenters living together aren't in the middle class and that we're somehow unwilling to acknowledge that's
7:23 am
the middle class. i don't understand that rationale and it sends a terrible message. now let's also look at how san francisco defines middle class. supervisor olague stated that the planning department says the middle class is 120 to 150% ami. it's not the planning department it's the housing element and the planning code. housing at 180% of af mi and above and defines middle class income housing as housing affordable to households making between 120 and 150% of median income. then we look at planning code section 4001 which defines middle income household as a household whose combined annual gross income for all members is between 120% and 150% of the local median income. so as a matter of policy, and as a matter of law, in san francisco, 120 toñjp 150% of
7:24 am
area median income is middle class. so why on earth would anyone would try to strip out the reference to that income range6 as being middle class is something that i don't really understand. i also do not think that the mayor's office of housing has indicated that 120 to 150% of ami is upper middle income housing. when i did a hearing earlier this year about middle class housing there was a particular mayor's office office of housing, as upper income housing. they did not do that and its presentation never indicated that, and to do that would have been i think inaccurate. colleagues it is clear that 120 to 150% of ami is middle income housing we should not be string this out and send that terrible message to the people of san francisco.
7:25 am
>> president chiu: supervisor olague -- and before you respond, supervisor olague, our clerk wanted to clarify that the additional language of or other available data you will make that amendment to all references where it refers to data on households earning approximately 120 to 150%. >> supervisor olague: yes. >> president chiu: okay. so hopefully that's clear to our city attorney. supervisor olague. >> supervisor olague: basically, i think what's important is that the reporting and the analysis capture 120 to 150. originally, the reporting was only going to go up to 120 because that is kind of the standard -- the bar that's set i then, you know, there was an amendment proposed to increase it to 150, which i don't think there was any disputing that any debate. i think yeah, we agreed, it should be included in there.
7:26 am
but there still seemed to be some -- i don't know if disagreement is the right word. there seems to be some semantics going on here around, you know, is it upper moderate income housing, which is what my understanding was, that mayor's office on housing tends to refer and then you have planning that sort of has a different way of -- a different language that they use. rather than getting caught up in that semantics debate i just ja4ted to make sure that the intent of the amendment was captured which is to include 120 to 150, which wasn't originally this reporting. and then hopefully there will be a time when advocates and this board, land use committee, or planning and moh can come to some kind of consensus to define
7:27 am
that housing between 120 and 150. so i think the fact that we're including it is some kind of acknowledgement that in fact this does include middle income because of, you know, some of the way it's been viewedm 4t regionally and there seems to be, in my mind, some -- still i'd just rather than-d you know, remove it, just kind of not include the name for now, and then maybe come back to that at a later time when there's more time for discussion. that's all. >> president chiu: supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you. amendment. i'm familiar but i just want to -- >> supervisor olague: i thought it was going to be distributed. >> supervisor kim: if someone can give me a copy that will be great. i'll say a couple of things. you know, i was hesitant a couple of weeks ago about
7:28 am
including 120 to 150, not because i don't think we should calculate it but i was curious as to how we would calculate it. when we build housing for 120 and below there are mechanisms where developers are required to build at this rate and their actual set kind of guidelines on how that's done. so i think the second amendment, asking developers to kind of prenotice -- i'm sorry, i don't have the language in fronts of me. i think that's important. as to how it's defined, as someone who resides in the 120 to 150ami as we do in this chambers, i don't know how important it is how we define iz as much that we collect that data when we can. my understanding is that the reason why we're doing this is that 80 to 120 is defined as moderate income -- i'm sorry 80 to 120 is defined as moderate income. it just doesn't follow on the scale.
7:29 am
so that's why the suggestion came before us. instead of going from moderate income to middle class that it go from moderate income to above moderate, however we want to define it, it is a need that we need to build more housing for 120 to 150. i'm curious as to how we as a city are meeting those goals. we, the city don't build 120 to 150 but it's dependent upon our developers to showcase when that need is being met through developments that come before us. >> clerk calvillo: mr. president, to supervisor kim, we handed out a document to each supervisor and we will make you another copy. now. thank you. >> the clerk: very good. >> president chiu: supervisor wiener5ejrxí. >> supervisor wiener: thank you. obviously, we have to make -- we're going to have to make some estimates and do an analysis and the planning department is capable of doing that to come up withhe

tv
[untitled]
December 1, 2012 7:00am-7:30am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 16, Chiu 11, Us 10, Mason 6, Ami 5, Olague 4, Harvey 4, Campos 3, Chu 3, Kim 2, Farrell 2, Doma 2, Howard Wallace 2, John PÉrez 2, Wiener 2, California 2, Vietnam 2, Gwen 1, Iowu Local 1, Carl 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480